All the mind’s arbitrary concepts of matter, phenomena, and of all conditioning factors and all conceptions and ideas relating thereto are like a dream, a phantasm, a bubble, a shadow, the evanescent dew, the lightning’s flash. Every true disciple should thus look upon all phenomena and upon all the activities of the mind, and keep his mind empty and selfless and tranquil.~The Diamond Sutra

It happened that one day, when a pennant was blown about by the wind, two Bhikkhus entered into a dispute as to what it was that was in motion, the wind or the pennant. As they could not settle their difference I submitted to them that it was neither, and that what actually moved was their own mind.~The Platform Sutra of Hui Neng

If we can speak about the "usual" meaning of a word, then in another instant use the word in an "extraordinary" manner the true nature of all words is emptiness, and the mind fills them with meaning. We may engage in intellectual exercises where we seek to grasp "concepts" by putting them into words we find "believable", but that does not change the nature of the dream.This is a very "mind-blowing" discussion!!!

"True seeing is called transcendence;False seeing is worldliness:Set aside both right and wrong,And the nature of enlightenment is clear."

PadmaVonSamba wrote:therein lies the error of your argument.if it is impermanent/changing, it is not a thing.

every tenet system in buddhism accepts things. for example produced things which are compounded, momentary, and luckily for me, validly knowable.

But that's the whole problem.You are referring to the cup as though it had inherent reality (intrinsic cupness) and asking what happens to that intrinsic reality when the cup breaks,because you assert that at the moment the cup breaksthat intrinsic reality is no longer there,and you can't figure out where it wentor precisely at what moment.

even if i accept that intrinsic reality means just that, i did not assert it because i said "its validly known as a cup BECAUSE it is validly labeled 'cup'." this means that 'cup' is not in the external object. nevertheless the external object is a cup since it is validly labeled 'cup' and thus validly knowable as a cup.

what you dont seem to understand is that 'cup' is an unchanging category that is knowable only in dependence on having for example seen a valid basis. this valid basis is the changing thing that is subject to disintegration/impermanence. unchanging things are not. 'cup' is never produced (by causes and conditions) nor does it disintegrate. the cup that holds water however, and which lacks intrinsic existence, is produced and must at some point end. the question is how, and the answer has little to do with 'cup', it has to do with the machinations of the in the case external physical basis

Parasamgate wrote:In the first moment a cup exists. In the second moment a broken cup exists. And there is no moment in between these two. Thus the answer to your question is the second possibility and this is how it happens. The definitions you put forward for cup sets it up so that these are the properties of time.

if a cup is not present at the time of its breaking, then theres no cup there that can break

saying that in the 2nd moment, following the 1st in which the cup somehow is brought to an end, a cup no longer exists, is merely to say that once it has ended it no longer exists. asking how a cup itself is brought to an end is different than merely asking whether a cup still exists once it has ended.

dont you agree? if not i can explain betterand i will try to think a bit about how to explain the trick

This seems to be causing a lot of confusion. O.k so Consider the following question and let me know your answer.Who travels faster, the pilot flying an airplane or the lazy man lying in his bed?

The Blessed One said:

"What is the All? Simply the eye & forms, ear & sounds, nose & aromas, tongue & flavors, body & tactile sensations, intellect & ideas. This, monks, is called the All. Anyone who would say, 'Repudiating this All, I will describe another,' if questioned on what exactly might be the grounds for his statement, would be unable to explain, and furthermore, would be put to grief. Why? Because it lies beyond range." Sabba Sutta.

5heaps wrote: even if i accept that intrinsic reality means just that, i did not assert it because i said "its validly known as a cup BECAUSE it is validly labeled 'cup'." this means that 'cup' is not in the external object. nevertheless the external object is a cup since it is validly labeled 'cup' and thus validly knowable as a cup.

"Validly labeled" in the Buddhist context, is contradictory....

Profile Picture: "The Foaming Monk"The Chinese characters are Fo (buddha) and Ming (bright). The image is of a student of Buddhism, who, imagining himself to be a monk, and not understanding the true meaning of the words takes the sound of the words literally. Likewise, People on web forums sometime seem to be foaming at the mouth. Original painting by P.Volker /used by permission.

5heaps wrote:what you dont seem to understand is that 'cup' is an unchanging category that is knowable only in dependence on having for example seen a valid basis. this valid basis is the changing thing that is subject to disintegration/impermanence. unchanging things are not. 'cup' is never produced (by causes and conditions) nor does it disintegrate. the cup that holds water however, and which lacks intrinsic existence, is produced and must at some point end. the question is how, and the answer has little to do with 'cup', it has to do with the machinations of the in the case external physical basis

What you don't seem to understand is that his statement doesn't make any sense.Cup is not an unchanging category.And the question is still"is it the case that there is a final moment of a cup, in which it breaks,or is it the case that the cup no longer exists during the moment that it breaks?"

Which, again you have not answered,because using nonsensical reasoning,no sensible answer is reachable.

Profile Picture: "The Foaming Monk"The Chinese characters are Fo (buddha) and Ming (bright). The image is of a student of Buddhism, who, imagining himself to be a monk, and not understanding the true meaning of the words takes the sound of the words literally. Likewise, People on web forums sometime seem to be foaming at the mouth. Original painting by P.Volker /used by permission.

5heaps wrote:if a cup is not present at the time of its breaking, then theres no cup there that can break

YES!!!!

Profile Picture: "The Foaming Monk"The Chinese characters are Fo (buddha) and Ming (bright). The image is of a student of Buddhism, who, imagining himself to be a monk, and not understanding the true meaning of the words takes the sound of the words literally. Likewise, People on web forums sometime seem to be foaming at the mouth. Original painting by P.Volker /used by permission.

Parasamgate wrote:In the first moment a cup exists. In the second moment a broken cup exists. And there is no moment in between these two. Thus the answer to your question is the second possibility and this is how it happens. The definitions you put forward for cup sets it up so that these are the properties of time.

if a cup is not present at the time of its breaking, then theres no cup there that can break

Agreed.

5heaps wrote:saying that in the 2nd moment, following the 1st in which the cup somehow is brought to an end, a cup no longer exists, is merely to say that once it has ended it no longer exists. asking how a cup itself is brought to an end is different than merely asking whether a cup still exists once it has ended.

Given the parameters of the discussion I think it is fair to conclude that at no time does the cup end. The cup ended in the instantaneous and durationless non-moment represented by that asterisk I pointed out above. That asterisk is not a moment of any duration. So we have a situation where there is no moment where the cup ends and yet the cup no longer exists in the second moment as illustrated above.

This might not be a satisfying answer to our grasping minds, but does that make it an invalid answer? How a cup ends, assuming the above is correct, is that it simply exists in one moment and not in the next. The second moment is dependent upon the first. I am not sure that it is an altogether unsatisfactory answer. I admit my mind was having a hard time of it and wanted to grasp on to some moment where the cup is actively ending, but since then my mind has become more comfortable with this answer and given up the grasping a bit.

5heaps wrote:and i will try to think a bit about how to explain the trick

Awesome. Can't wait to hear it

BTW, I am very curious where you learned all this about how the tenet systems describe how a cup exists. In other words, where did you come up with these definitions which this mental exercise is based upon?

Andrew108 wrote:Who travels faster, the pilot flying an airplane or the lazy man lying in his bed?

In relation to what?

In relation to presence.

The Blessed One said:

"What is the All? Simply the eye & forms, ear & sounds, nose & aromas, tongue & flavors, body & tactile sensations, intellect & ideas. This, monks, is called the All. Anyone who would say, 'Repudiating this All, I will describe another,' if questioned on what exactly might be the grounds for his statement, would be unable to explain, and furthermore, would be put to grief. Why? Because it lies beyond range." Sabba Sutta.

Parasamgate wrote: Given the parameters of the discussion I think it is fair to conclude that at no time does the cup end. The cup ended in the instantaneous and durationless non-moment represented by that asterisk I pointed out above. That asterisk is not a moment of any duration. So we have a situation where there is no moment where the cup ends and yet the cup no longer exists in the second moment as illustrated above.

A friend of mine once told me that even though people say "at some point in time..." that in fact, there is no such thing as a point in time.

What ends, or doesn't end,is purely a conditional situation.and the conditions involved are primarily things we impute.If I take a paper cupand, having finished the beverage,crumple it up into a little ball and throw it into the recycling box,is it still a cup?If it is, why?And if not, why not?

What makes it still a cup? Is it because it might be uncrumpled and used again?And what if, instead of crumbling it up, I ripped it to pieces?Can it be recycled and made into a new cup?And if it is not a cup, then why not?

Since these "why" questions can only be answered arbitrarily,meaning purely based on opinion vs. of another,these random definitions establish "CUP" to begin with.

Being able to identify any exact moment when a cup "ceases" to be a cupdepends purely on whatever subjective imputations were usedthat established it as a cup in the first place.

Maybe what the original question should have beeen,"at what exact moment does a cup become a broken cup?"...

Profile Picture: "The Foaming Monk"The Chinese characters are Fo (buddha) and Ming (bright). The image is of a student of Buddhism, who, imagining himself to be a monk, and not understanding the true meaning of the words takes the sound of the words literally. Likewise, People on web forums sometime seem to be foaming at the mouth. Original painting by P.Volker /used by permission.

Andrew108 wrote: Who travels faster, the pilot flying an airplane or the lazy man lying in his bed? ......In relation to presence.

A pilot on a plane travels through the sky hundreds of miles per hourbut a man lying in a bed moves around the center of the earth at thousands of miles per hour.So "in relation to presence' means what?...

Profile Picture: "The Foaming Monk"The Chinese characters are Fo (buddha) and Ming (bright). The image is of a student of Buddhism, who, imagining himself to be a monk, and not understanding the true meaning of the words takes the sound of the words literally. Likewise, People on web forums sometime seem to be foaming at the mouth. Original painting by P.Volker /used by permission.

Andrew108 wrote:Who travels faster, the pilot flying an airplane or the lazy man lying in his bed?

In relation to what?

In relation to presence.

I don't know what that means. What do you mean by, 'In relation to presence'?

To answer your question of who travels faster we must know by what third object the speed of the pilot and the lazy man is to be calculated. We must know the third object in order to establish a reference frame with which to calculate the relative speeds of the pilot and the lazy man. Is that third object the earth? The moon? Something else?

Another option is that you are asking who travels faster in relation to each other. In this case, the answer would be that they are each traveling at the same speed.

I wonder if we are getting off topic though. Can you just tell us what you mean by presence or give us the answer to your question so that we can understand what you mean? Thanks!

The point is to understand that phenomena don't move distances. Presence doesn't have a speed and neither does impermanence. There do not exist compounded phomena which arise and cease in dependence on before and after. This is the intention. So it's important to understand this.

The Blessed One said:

"What is the All? Simply the eye & forms, ear & sounds, nose & aromas, tongue & flavors, body & tactile sensations, intellect & ideas. This, monks, is called the All. Anyone who would say, 'Repudiating this All, I will describe another,' if questioned on what exactly might be the grounds for his statement, would be unable to explain, and furthermore, would be put to grief. Why? Because it lies beyond range." Sabba Sutta.

PadmaVonSamba wrote:Maybe what the original question should have beeen,"at what exact moment does a cup become a broken cup?"

I'm not so sure. Let's say we adopt your definition of 'cup' and say that is based upon subjective imputations that are impermanent and changing and also dependent upon the mind that makes the subjective imputations. As long as whatever subjective imputation and whatever dependent mind makes said subjective imputation about 'cup' also holds that this subjective imputation can not simultaneously coincide with another subjective imputation that labels 'broken cup', then I think this mental exercise results.

Given this, I think the answer to your restated question is that at no exact moment does "a cup become a broken cup."

Which is exactly the same answer only minimally reconstituted from 5heaps question and answer. The crux seems to be that as long as the definition(s) of 'cup' and 'broken cup' are such that they can not simultaneously coincide, then we arrive at this same question and this same answer. Agree?

Last edited by Parasamgate on Sat Mar 16, 2013 4:34 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Andrew108 wrote:The point is to understand that phenomena don't move distances. Presence doesn't have a speed and neither does impermanence. There do not exist compounded phomena which arise and cease in dependence on before and after. This is the intention. So it's important to understand this.

I am sorry, but I just don't understand this. It sounds to me like you are refuting the conventional notion of speed or even movement itself.

"What is the All? Simply the eye & forms, ear & sounds, nose & aromas, tongue & flavors, body & tactile sensations, intellect & ideas. This, monks, is called the All. Anyone who would say, 'Repudiating this All, I will describe another,' if questioned on what exactly might be the grounds for his statement, would be unable to explain, and furthermore, would be put to grief. Why? Because it lies beyond range." Sabba Sutta.

this seems incomprehensible to all you bad students of emptiness: although the imputation is arbitrary, nevertheless the basis which is imputed in dependence on still must at some point no longer be fit to be labeled accordingly. thus the end of that thing which the word cup refers to.

without becoming quickly confused yet again, the question is, how does that basis come to and end. so far we have answers like, energy is transmitted through veins until it breaks, or that the cup (the thing to which the word cup refers to) still exists because it can be reassembled even though it is broken.

I think to determine realistically how the conventional basis for "cup" comes to an end we need to equally examine how it comes into being. Clearly, there are valid basis (i.e. physical characteristics) of "cup" or "vessel" which can be naturally formed, not manmade:

So when these arise due to their own causes and conditions, not manufactured with the intention to be a "cup" they may or may not be later discovered by a human being and put to use as a "cup" They may be discovered by a human being and put to use as a collectible, a scientific specimen, etc. Or they may never be discovered by a human being. Do they then qualify as "cup", because they meet the criteria of physical basis/appearance and potential function?

If a cup forms in the woods and no one sees it, does it make a "cup" label?

"Cup" is not arising from it's own side.

A monkey may use what we might label and use as a cup, as a stool. Or as a hat. And the monkey may never label it any of these things.

So clearly the point at which the conventional labeling of "cup" ceases to be is when the minds that had labeled it a cup in the first place cease to label it as such. This might be at the point when it shatters. But as has been pointed out, one artisan who sees the shattered cup may still label it as cup knowing that it would take him 15min to glue the shards back together, repairing the cup. So the cup's function was just temporarily displaced, though the label "cup" never left the mind of the artisan. Similarly, an artist may take a "cup" and turn it upside down and place it on a pedestal as a readymade sculpture. Duchamp did this with a few objects, most famously his upside down urinal signed "R. Mutt".

At this point, the collective social imputation becomes "sculpture", not "cup" or "urinal" although the reference that it once was a cup or a urinal may still remain in the collective mind, as it would with a shattered cup.

If you put a functional "cup" that you label a "cup" upside down over your cats bowl of food to keep her from eating too much, or at the wrong time.. is that a "cup" to the cat? The cat likely never labeled it a cup, although you may have, but at that point to the cat it is simply an obstruction to her feeding. So you are not using it as a cup, and the cat certainly does not label it as a cup.. the only place it is a cup is in your mind's projected memory of past function and potential projection of future function.

Likewise, in a village overtaken by a sandstorm, volcano, or hurricane which has been abandoned, there may be many conventional man-made cups left behind. They may be buried under sand, or lava, or water. They may be used by other beings: worms, fish, crabs, etc. for shelter or not used at all. Are they still cups? If all the people from the village are no longer alive with their memory of these cups in mind? If no longer cups, at what moment did these cups cease being cups, even if still intact?

IT IS ALL COMPLETELY RELATIVE.

The true impermanence of a cup is deeply interrelated with the impermanence of our own mind, our thoughts, and our relation to objects and others. It is as elusive as our own identity.

Contentment is the ultimate wealth;Detachment is the final happiness. ~Sri Saraha

Parasamgate wrote: As long as whatever subjective imputation and whatever dependent mind makes said subjective imputation about 'cup' also holds that this subjective imputation can not simultaneously coincide with another subjective imputation that labels 'broken cup'

You know, just for the record,I never buy bananas unless they come completely and tightly wrapped in decomposing garbage.Luckily, that's the only way they sell them at all the stores in my town.

Parasamgate wrote: at no exact moment does "a cup become a broken cup."

Relatively, you can say "it breaks....right....NOWbut ultimately (and we are looking, I think for the ultimate answer) no cup, no breaking.

Parasamgate wrote: The crux seems to be that as long as the definition(s) of 'cup' and 'broken cup' are such that they can not simultaneously coincide, then we arrive at this same question and this same answer. Agree?

As long as we agree that "cup" means "unbroken cup", then, yes, I would agree.But that is an assumption.What if I said, "bag full of egg shells"?You would perhaps assume they were broken.

So, if we take the imputed label, "cup' out of the picture,and make it a generic thing, so it doesn't matter what we are talking about, cups, egg shells, bananas...we can simply ask, what happens when a single object is divided into parts(putting aside any argument by Nagarjuna that a single object is still made of parts)at what point did that singularity cease?Did a bunch on new singularities arise?

Would you say that this is a good way of understanding the question?

...

Profile Picture: "The Foaming Monk"The Chinese characters are Fo (buddha) and Ming (bright). The image is of a student of Buddhism, who, imagining himself to be a monk, and not understanding the true meaning of the words takes the sound of the words literally. Likewise, People on web forums sometime seem to be foaming at the mouth. Original painting by P.Volker /used by permission.

PadmaVonSamba wrote:So, if we take the imputed label, "cup' out of the picture,and make it a generic thing, so it doesn't matter what we are talking about, cups, egg shells, bananas...we can simply ask, what happens when a single object is divided into parts(putting aside any argument by Nagarjuna that a single object is still made of parts)at what point did that singularity cease?Did a bunch on new singularities arise?

Would you say that this is a good way of understanding the question?

...

The question becomes even more ponderous when you start examining reproduction by binary fission.

Contentment is the ultimate wealth;Detachment is the final happiness. ~Sri Saraha

Adamantine wrote:The question becomes even more ponderous when you start examining reproduction by binary fission.

Nothing beats microscopic porn. Thanks for that picture.

So, I think the "one-into-many" problem comes about because we impute singularity as a characteristic.I used to have this discussion with people about a bowl of vegetable soup.Is there something singularly unique that is in itself, "soup"or is it a bunch of separate food things floating in a broth?

We call it "soup" for the sake of conceptual conveniencebut such a term really only refers to a particular type of sum of parts.It's like the total amount of payment due printed at the bottom of a list of things purchased.We call that "total". It is a representative term. it represents a bunch of different things added together.

"Cup" likewise only refers to the sum of its partsarranged in such a way, over and over again,over centuries,so that we humans have developed a generalized conceptof such an arrangement.Thus, as mentioned ,if I ask you if you'd like a cup of coffee,you know I will not pour it into your shoes.

We can say 'cup" or "mug" or "chalice" or"grail" referring to a grouping of componentsIn the same way that we have created a conceptual category we call "soup"for objects in a bowl of liquid.A bowl of corn flakes in milk is also a kind of soup, isn't it?but we don't call it that.

If you knock a bowl of soup onto the floor,you still have the bowl, even if it now a broken bowland you still have the soupeven if it is now a mess on the floorbecause you still have the components parts of each.What you don't haveis something you can eat.There is no point at which the components of bowl or soup ceased.the only thing that ended was the concept of singularity, of the grand totaland that was only a representative concept to begin with.

in the case of micro-organisms,the potential to divide is always thereso the situation becomes one of realized vs. unrealized potential.But yes, it is more complicated.a single cell becomes two more single cells.This is different than a cup. It doesn't break and become two more cups.This reminds me of Mickey Mouse chopping up the Sorcerer's broom,or a hologram. Or the Christian Eucharist....

Profile Picture: "The Foaming Monk"The Chinese characters are Fo (buddha) and Ming (bright). The image is of a student of Buddhism, who, imagining himself to be a monk, and not understanding the true meaning of the words takes the sound of the words literally. Likewise, People on web forums sometime seem to be foaming at the mouth. Original painting by P.Volker /used by permission.